|
Top Document: [sci.astro] Solar System (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (5/9) Previous Document: E.06 What happens to the planets when the Sun dies? Next Document: E.08 How are solar system objects and features named? See reader questions & answers on this topic! - Help others by sharing your knowledge The short answer is no; the detailed answer depends entirely on what is meant by "explode." The Sun doesn't have anything like enough mass to form a Type 2 supernova (whose progenitors are supergiants), which require more than about 8 solar masses; thus the Sun will not become a supernova on its own. "Novae" arise from an accumulation of gases on a collapsed object, such as a white dwarf or a neutron star. The gas comes from a nearby companion (usually a distended giant). Although nova explosions are large by human standards, they are not nearly powerful enough to destroy the star involved; indeed, most novae are thought to explode repeatedly on time scales of years to millenia. Since the Sun is not a collapsed object, nor does it have a companion---let alone a collapsed one---the Sun cannot go (or even be involved in) a nova. Under conditions not well understood, the accumulation of gases on a collapsed object may produce a Type 1 supernova instead of an ordinary nova. This is similar in principle to a nova explosion but much larger; the star involved is thought to be completely destroyed. The Sun will not be involved in this type of explosion for the same reasons it will not become a nova. When the Sun evolves from a red giant to a white dwarf, it will shed its atmosphere and form a planetary nebula; but this emission could not really be considered an explosion. User Contributions:Comment about this article, ask questions, or add new information about this topic:Top Document: [sci.astro] Solar System (Astronomy Frequently Asked Questions) (5/9) Previous Document: E.06 What happens to the planets when the Sun dies? Next Document: E.08 How are solar system objects and features named? Part0 - Part1 - Part2 - Part3 - Part4 - Part5 - Part6 - Part7 - Part8 - Single Page [ Usenet FAQs | Web FAQs | Documents | RFC Index ] Send corrections/additions to the FAQ Maintainer: jlazio@patriot.net
Last Update March 27 2014 @ 02:11 PM
|
with stars, then every direction you looked would eventually end on
the surface of a star, and the whole sky would be as bright as the
surface of the Sun.
Why would anyone assume this? Certainly, we have directions where we look that are dark because something that does not emit light (is not a star) is between us and the light. A close example is in our own solar system. When we look at the Sun (a star) during a solar eclipse the Moon blocks the light. When we look at the inner planets of our solar system (Mercury and Venus) as they pass between us and the Sun, do we not get the same effect, i.e. in the direction of the planet we see no light from the Sun? Those planets simply look like dark spots on the Sun.
Olbers' paradox seems to assume that only stars exist in the universe, but what about the planets? Aren't there more planets than stars, thus more obstructions to light than sources of light?
What may be more interesting is why can we see certain stars seemingly continuously. Are there no planets or other obstructions between them and us? Or is the twinkle in stars just caused by the movement of obstructions across the path of light between the stars and us? I was always told the twinkle defines a star while the steady light reflected by our planets defines a planet. Is that because the planets of our solar system don't have the obstructions between Earth and them to cause a twinkle effect?
9-14-2024 KP